Why is so little being made of the removal of the president's referendum calling...

hatrickpatrick

...rights in the Seanad referendum?

From the Referendum commission:

Referral of Bills to the People

The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.

If this referendum is passed:

This possibility of the reference of Bills to the people by the President will be removed from the Constitution.

http://referendum2013.ie/the-seanad-other-changes/

I was undecided, but this paragraph alone has completely made up my mind to vote against this amendment. The Seanad isn't all that important to me, but removing the ability for the president to call a referendum on a law is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction. It doesn't matter if the provision has rarely been used, removing any avenues for a more participatory democracy is an extremely bad move in my view.

What is the justification for removing this right of the president, and furthermore, why does nobody seem to be discussing this aspect to the referendum? It is, in my view, far more important than anything involving the Seanad.

ArmaniJeanss

Referral of Bills to the People

The Constitution provides that Bills may be referred to the people for a referendum if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than one third of the members of the Dáil ask the President not to sign a Bill because it contains a proposal of such national importance that the decision to have such a law should be made by the people. The President may agree or disagree with this request.

Is it not self-evident?
With the Seanad no longer existing then the clause 'if a majority of members of the Seanad and not less than a third of the Dail' can no longer be met, so therefore it has to be removed.

Its merely a by-product of removing the Seanad, not some totally separate issue.

hatrickpatrick

They could have removed the Seanad part and left it to one third of the Dail, this removes that presidential right altogether.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Seanad isn't all that important to me, but removing the ability for the president to call a referendum on a law is, in my view, a step in the wrong direction.

The president doesn't have the right to call for a referendum; the president has the right to accede to a request from both houses to call for a referendum.

As I've explained elsewhere, if we abolish the Seanad and keep Article 27, we'll have a situation where a parliament which has just voted to pass a law will have the right to petition the president to ask the people whether they want it. Which is silly, because the same parliament already has the power to ask the people anything they want.

I can understand the hesitation to remove the provision for referral of bills to the people, but it's important to understand that that's not, strictly speaking, a power the president currently has.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

The president doesn't have the right to call for a referendum; the president has the right to accede to a request from both houses to call for a referendum.

As I've explained elsewhere, if we abolish the Seanad and keep Article 27, we'll have a situation where a parliament which has just voted to pass a law will have the right to petition the president to ask the people whether they want it. Which is silly, because the same parliament already has the power to ask the people anything they want.

I can understand the hesitation to remove the provision for referral of bills to the people, but it's important to understand that that's not, strictly speaking, a power the president currently has.

I see your point; however, is it not also the case that the required third of the dail could be made up of opposition TDs?
Given how often the government seems to ram things through without allowing a proper debate, anything which could potentially slow them down is at least better than nothing at all, no?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I see your point; however, is it not also the case that the required third of the dail could be made up of opposition TDs?

You think a minority of TDs should have the power (with the cooperation of a sympathetic president) to call referendums?

Given how often the government seems to ram things through without allowing a proper debate, anything which could potentially slow them down is at least better than nothing at all, no?

I'm all for checks and balances, but introducing direct democracy by stealth isn't a reform I'd go for.

dlouth15

It is something I feel has been overlooked somewhat by the media. One of the problems is that not everyone will be aware of such a function of the Seanad in the first place.

kerry4sam

dlouth15 wrote: »

It is something I feel has been overlooked somewhat by the media. One of the problems is that not everyone will be aware of such a function of the Seanad in the first place.

It certainly is/was overlooked or at the very least ignored! I've gotten myself in far too debates these past few weeks on this very topic. All I am continuously being asked is 'How come it's not being highlighted in the Media then?' - fupping annoyed me so it has.